[bisq-network/proposals] Allow 1sat/vByte fee for withdrawals (#343)

[Liisachan]

> But the change outputs of any withdrawal can be used as inputs for a trade, thus affecting another trader.

Correct me if I'm wrong but if that is allowed, the exact same problem can happen already, when one sends BTC with 1 sat/vB from another non-Bisq wallet to Bisq and use it for trading before confirmations. Also, if 1 sat could cause a problem, 2 sats (already allowed) can cause similar problems too.
True, when mempool is kept super-crowded for a long time, 1 sat would never work. But in such a situation, 2 (or even 10) sats also might be too low. On the other hand, if mempool is empty, a tx with a 1 sat fee will be confirmed quickly perhaps within 10 minutes.

This is a custom option disabled by default, usable only when a user ticks a checkbox. If a user manually enables an advanced option, usually they know what they are doing. Maybe they're simply sending BTC between their own Bisq and non-Bisq wallets, thinking they won't mind even if it takes days. Plus, such a cost-conscious user is likely to check mempool before doing that.

I'd like to believe that Bisq users, being privacy-aware, tend to be careful and thoughtful. I'd never even think about using a fund that is not yet confirmed for trading, partially because there would be penalty if things go wrong. But admittedly, there might be careless users or innocent mistakes, and so it might be safer for the devs to assume that every user is like a stupid kid. Either way, allowing 2 sats and allowing 1 sat seem the same difference:
- Potential problems of 1 sat are almost equally possible with 2 sats.
- A user agrees to pay 10+ sats/vB within Bisq anyway, plus maker's fee, taker's fee. So basically, NOT allowing 1 sat would be the same difference too. When you're paying 10+ plus other fees, a 1 sat discount would be rather nominal.

So the bottom line is "whichever"... until someday RBF is implemented in Bisq.
Just my two sats :)




-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/bisq-network/proposals/issues/343#issuecomment-954356274
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bisq.network/pipermail/bisq-github/attachments/20211028/0caac480/attachment-0001.htm>